Anti-LGBT/Religious Freedom Laws

It's a relative question to me. I'm wondering why someone without the financial or ability or will to raise a human being would be compelled to risk that by having sex in the first place. If you aren't prepared for the possible outcome then don't do it. I know in today's society that's asking a lot but sheesh. Actions do have consequences.

 

We did, and you moved the goalposts. You argued that there is no "am-ing" (assuming this means no being, or perhaps no personhood) without thought. Others claimed that newborns don't think, and you said that the difference is that they can be handed off. But if they don't have moral status, then it shouldn't matter whether or not they can be handed off. And if they do have moral status, then so should the fetus.

 

I know I am accused of making semantics arguments, but I think the nature of the disagreement is confused by the words we choose. YOU think there "is a being." I reject that premise and challenge you to demonstrate it is a being. Start there. How is a fetus a being? It can't be a being AND be growing into a being (person), yet you made this seemingly contradicting statement twice.

 

well, if you're married, then it is commanded in Scripture. . .

 

Obviously there isn't one.

 

"person" and "being" are not equivalent, and I can't really think of a good reason why we should think they are

 

And how many couples that are following Scripture do you wager are having abortions because they weren't ready?

 

I wasn't responding to a question about abortion, I was responding to a question about being prepared to have a child

 

A human being has all their parts that are required for living in place. A brain. Intestines. Heart. Liver. Etc.

Requiring consciousness causes the being definition to be pressed much further than pre- and post-natal. A 1 month old is not very conscious. In fact, if a human's hips were bigger, most likely it would still be in womb, as we had to evolve to prematurely deliver our babies so that the mothers could still walk upright. A baby's brain is about 3/4 of a pound vs a 3 pound adult brain.

I have stated that 1st trimester abortions I am "ok" with. I wish they didn't happen (and this is a convenience thing, not life threatening thing/rape/incest), but they do. After that, I think we are treading into territories where the main difference between a fetus and a 10 year old kid is mostly the size of everything.

 

That wasn't what you asked, man. You asked who would be having sex if they weren't financially prepared for a child. The answer includes those following scripture.

 

I'm not the one who claimed they were beings, I'm stating that it is the consciousness that is required for something to be a being. Whether that means a being doesn't develop before 8-12 months or not doesn't affect my position at all. The basis for me seeing a distinction between infanticide and abortion is based on the sovereignty we each have over our own bodies. The criticism my view receives has to do with there being "two people." There are not two people however, in my view. Once born, a baby can be critically cared for by anyone who wishes to do so and is now in itself an independent organism biologically.

I don't see abortion any different than pulling the plug on a person with severe brain injuries that will never recover and cannot survive on their own. The consciousness that makes a person is no longer there, just as it was never yet there in a fetus. And unlike a baby, the human vegetable or the fetus cannot survive without constant help. You cannot lay a fetus down for a nap. You cannot take the human vegetable outside away from the machines for an hour or two.

 

You asked a question (to TV, but I figured like most it is an open question to everyone) and I answered it. Wasn't claiming you said anything, other than your consciousness requirements.

Where between "cares" is the line drawn, meaning, how short of a time span between someone/something nourishing/sustaining the human does it have to be before it is no longer a being? A quick Google search shows the youngest premature baby to survive was at 21 weeks, two weeks before the legal cut off in the US for abortions.

These are not easy questions, and most people will have their ideas in their heads (like you and me) and it will take a monumental shift to change their minds. And that is not something debating on the internet will perform.

But I do think these are important questions and require debate, if anything to keep them from becoming lost in the din of life.

 

In the same way a parasite is alive. I don't hear people arguing to save them.

 

You keep leaving that part out and throwing in other criteria.

 

Same reason we (well, most people, some do) do not line up and protest killing deer during hunting season but are horrified when someone shoots 20 people in a McDonalds.

 

Yes, parasites and fetuses are both living beings. Now that we have that out of the way, we can start talking about their worth and moral status

 

Fetuses can be removed and critically cared for by someone else in many cases. The timeline for that action will continuously grow.

 

I'm not an anti abortion guy, if people want to get them as a form of birth control, so be it, but they're taking a life. Arguing otherwise, to me, is silly. I'm not in that person's shoes, I'm not passing judgement on them, but it is what it is. Call a spade a spade.

 

Exactly, call it what it is.

 

If you're saying my position is robust, thanks.